Maya Subsistence Hunters in Quintana Roo, Mexico

ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995 Maya subsistence hunters in Quintana Roo, Mexico

Jeffrey P. Jorgenson

Wild animals have played an important role in the lives of Maya Indians but recent evidence from a small Maya community in south-eastern Mexico suggests that their importance as a source of food may be diminishing. The persistence of subsistence hunting despite low kill rates suggests that hunting is still culturally important to the Maya community as a whole. By combining subsistence hunting with other subsistence and commercial activities, such as gardening and the extraction of chicle latex from sapodilla trees Manilkara zapota, contemporary Maya hunters are preserving a culturally important activity while simultaneously adapting to internal and external pressures to modernize their society.

Wildlife is important to colonists and indige- (Schele and Freidel, 1992) also point to the role nous people in Latin America (Redford and of wild animals in Maya art and mythology. Robinson, 1987; Robinson and Redford, 1991). The Maya's use of wild animals can be traced Three specific roles have been identified for back to at least 7000 BC (Nesbitt, 1980). Recent wild animals (Vickers, 1991). First, wild ani- evidence from south-eastern Mexico shows mals are important in human diets (Bodmer et that, although wild animals may be diminish- al., 1988; Stearman, 1989; Dufour, 1990; Ayres ing in importance as a source of food, hunting et al., 1991). Second, animals are important for continues to be important culturally to mod- cultural reasons. They are kept as pets, their ern Maya Indians. bones and teeth are used to make tools, and The object of this paper is to examine sub- various parts are used for ornaments (Yost sistence hunting by contemporary Maya and Kelley, 1983; Thomsen and Brautigam, Indians in the context of their daily and sea- 1991). Third, wild animals are part of the art sonal activities, especially gardening. Gardens and mythology of many groups (McDonald, have been planted for millennia and are im- 1977; Ross, 1978; Balee, 1985). portant both because of the crops they pro- Contemporary and historical evidence show duce and the game they attract (Jorgenson, that wild animals are important to Maya 1993). But gardens are not the only sites where Indians in Central America. Archaeological wildlife is taken. Based on observations in studies in Mexico and Guatemala have re- south-eastern Mexico, the Maya also capture vealed that Maya Indians in pre-Columbian wild animals in the forest while engaged in times consumed several species of insects, am- various types of subsistence and commercial phibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (Pohl, activities. Several factors thus affect Maya sub- 1976; Hamblin, 1984). They also kept wild ani- sistence hunting practices. mals such as white-tailed deer Odocoileus vir- ginianus and collared peccaries Tayassu tajacu as pets, and used wild animal parts to make Study area and methods tools and ceremonial ornaments (Redfield and Villa Rojas, 1962; Villa Rojas, 1987). Woven The study took place at Ejido X-Hazil y animal figures, stories about wild animals in Anexos, State of Quintana Roo, Mexico, dur- oral history (Burns, 1983) and bird and mam- ing 1989-90 (total area 552.95 sq km; Figure 1; mal images on recently deciphered glyphs Jorgenson, 1993). Ejidos are properties where

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.229, on 27 Sep 2021 at 16:23:54, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605300020871 J. P. JORGENSON

State capital • Cities/towns International boundaries State boundaries - Highways Figure 1. Location of Ejido X- 25 50 75 100 km Hazil y Anexos, State of Quintana Roo, Mexico.

landless subsistence farmers have the legal and other Maya subsistence and commercial right to use and profit from the natural re- activities are closely tied to the seasons. Based sources of the area (Gordillo, 1988). In south- on forest surveys and interpretation of aerial eastern Mexico, ejidos were organized primar- photographs, 88.52 per cent of the ejido was ily to exploit lumber and non-timber forest categorized as late secondary forest (relatively products for the benefit of the resident com- undisturbed by human activity), 6.07 per cent munities. as plots and gardens, 5.18 per cent as early Hunting data were obtained from co-oper- secondary forest (recently fallowed areas), and ating hunters at the village of X-Hazil Sur 0.23 per cent as other types. According to vil- (19°23'30"N, 88°05'00"W), the largest of three lagers, the immediate area has been occupied villages on the ejido (total population = 1680). by Maya Indians since about 1915 and their Most residents are Maya and were born in the main subsistence activity is shifting culti- village. A few mestizo (Indian/Spanish) fami- vation, mainly for corn. lies also lived on the ejido, having immigrated The contemporary Maya at Ejido X-Hazil y to the area from other parts of Mexico. Both Anexos are highly acculturated, living in per- Mayas and mestizo residents hunted wild ani- manent settlements and raising domestic animals and planted gardens. mals such as pigs, chickens and turkeys. They The study area typically has one dry season are neither peasants nor tribal people but vil- (December-May) and one wet season (June- lagers with systems of social relations based November), with annual precipitation of on loosely formed groups within the commu- about 1300 mm. Gardening, hunting patterns, nity. However, these groups are not equiva-

50 ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995

lent to western social classes (A. F. Burns, per. officials provided information about logging, comm.). Thus, comparisons with other chicle tapping and railway-sleeper cutting. Neotropical subsistence hunters, including peasants and tribal people may not be directly comparable. Results The data presented here were collected during 1989-90 in the context of larger studies of Maya subsistence hunting (Jorgenson, 1993) Maya hunters and chicle tapping (the collection of chicle In 1989 the population of X-Hazil Sur was 950 latex from sapodilla trees to produce chewing residents in about 200 households. A total of gum) (Barrera de Jorgenson, 1993). Game was 86 hunters reported taking game (Jorgenson, identified and measured according to stan- in press). Male hunters ranged in age from 10 dard research methods. Collaborators pro- to 60 years old, but the average hunter was vided information about the wild animals about 29 years old. They constituted about 18 they hunted and gardens they planted. Village per cent of the male population, but the number and proportion of hunters were decreas- ing. Many elderly men said that they had re- Table 1. Reported number of individuals and total cently quit hunting because the work was now weight of game birds and mammals taken by Maya too hard and the wildlife too scarce. In ad- hunters at X-Hazil Sur, Quintana Roo, Mexico, June dition many hunters reported that their 1989-October 1990 (Jorgenson, 1993) teenaged sons were not learning how to hunt Total no. Total weight because they were attending high school or were working away from the village. Game species individuals (kg)* The number of game kills per hunter varied Mammals greatly. During the 17-month study period, an Pocket gopher 53 (51)+ 22.3 average of seven animals were killed per Paca 47 274.8 hunter. Thirty-five hunters each reported only Agouti 35 96.8 Coati 167 504.9 one kill, while the hunter with the greatest White-lipped peccary 3 94.3 number of kills reported taking 85 animals. Collared peccary 40 (36) 618.5 Seven hunters each reported 27 or more kills Brocket deer 16 250.0 and accounted for 54 per cent of the total White-tailed deer 24 (22) 709.0 number of game birds and mammals taken. Total 385 (377) 2,570.6 % of all game 66 95 Wild animals taken as game Birds Thicket tinamou 13 4.9 Maya hunters harvested four taxa of birds (n = Great curassow 13 40.1 199 individuals) and eight taxa of mammals Plain chachalaca 167 64.9 for food (n = 385, Table 1), but did not take Ocellated turkey 6 19.7 amphibians, reptiles or insects. This suggests Total 199 129.5 that Maya hunters could be selective and did % of all game 34 5 not have to capture all potentially edible wild Mammals and birds 584 (576) 2700.1 animals in order to survive. Most of the game was consumed by the * Total weight for each species was determined by hunter and his immediate family, but small summing the weights of individual prey items. The quantities of meat were also sold locally or degree of precision varied between species because shared with other villagers at community fes- different scales with assorted capacities and graduations were used. tivals or religious ceremonies. The most fre- + Values in parentheses indicate number of quently harvested mammals were the coati individuals weighed if weight not available for all Nasua nasua (n =167), pocket gopher Orthogeomys individuals in taxa. hispidus (n = 53), and paca Agouti paca (n = 47).

ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995 51

had not killed a wild animal for several years. Others said that their guns did not work or that they frequently did not have any ammu- nition. Despite these circumstances, many Maya men still felt a cultural need to carry a rifle or shotgun. These men were able to con- ceal the fact that they had not harvested any game because Maya hunters were not obliged to share their meat with family or friends or to announce publicly that they had made a kill. Hunters at X-Hazil Sur no longer hunted several species of wild animals that had been hunted by their parents and grandparents. Perhaps the most surprising example of this change was the fact that they no longer hunted the armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus, although this species is still relatively common in south-eastern Mexico. Hunters also reported that they no longer hunted tapirs Tapirus bairdii, spider monkeys Ateles geoffroyi or howler monkeys Alouatta pigra. Hunters said that tapirs are difficult to locate because they occupy seasonally flooded lowlands 12-15 km from the village, along the eastern edge of the study area. In addition, tapir meat was reported to be not especially tasty, and a Maya craftspeople use brocket deer and white-tailed young tapir run down on the highway near deer antlers in making animal figures sold to the village in early 1989 was not salvaged. tourists in south-eastern Mexico. None of the hunters could remember having killed a tapir for at least 10 years prior to the The most frequently taken bird was the plain study. Hunters reported that spider and chachalaca Ortalis vetula (n = 167). The total howler monkeys were observed occasionally weight of all game birds and mammals har- in the forest around the village but were be- vested during the 17-month period was 2700 coming rare. Nobody expressed an interest in kg, equivalent to about 2.0 kg per capita annu- earing monkey meat, although many hunters ally for each villager. By total weight har- said that their parents had eaten it in the past. vested, the main mammals were white-tailed Most hunters also said that now it was con- deer (709.0 kg; n = 22), collared peccary (618.5 sidered ethically incorrect to kill an adult fe- kg; n = 36), and the coati (504.9 kg), while the male primate in order to capture and sell her main bird was the plain chachalaca (64.9 kg). dependent offspring.

Cultural context of Maya subsistence hunting Maya gardens Anecdotal information suggested that hunting Most Maya living in rural areas still practise or appearing to hunt was still culturally im- shifting cultivation, planting gardens in the portant. Several men were observed carrying forest in close proximity to the village, as they guns to their gardens but they never reported have done for thousands of years (Reina, a kill. When questioned about this, many said 1967). Despite thousands of years of hunting that they carried a gun mainly to keep up the pressure, however, Maya gardens and fallows appearance of being a hunter, and that they throughout Central America continue to 52 ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995

Maya hunter /gardener returning home on a bicycle after killing three white-lipped peccaries.

attract wildlife (Nations and Nigh, 1980; the main crop predators but the Maya did not Greenberg, 1992). Gardeners at X-Hazil Sur eat them. Coatis were another main crop pred- still practise traditional shifting cultivation. ator and were frequently taken while garden- During 1989-90, about 80-85 per cent of the ers harvested corn during November-January. adult men planted gardens. While most Gardens were used 1-3 years before being hunters planted gardens, few gardeners regu- abandoned (Noguez-Galvez, 1991) but wild larly hunted wild animals. animals continued to use them, exploiting any The average garden covered about 2 ha and crops that had not been harvested as well as was located about 4 km from the village. Of 16 early-successional plants that became estab- types of crops reported, the most frequently lished in the fallow period. planted were corn, squashes and kidney beans (Jorgenson, 1993). Gardeners travelled daily to their gardens on bicycle and on foot, about Game harvest in plots and gardens 30^15 minutes each way, arriving in the morn- Wild animals were not harvested equally ing at about 7.00-8.00 h and leaving for home throughout the different vegetation types of in the early afternoon. Hunters frequently har- the study area. Gardens and fallow areas had vested wild animals in the garden itself or en a relatively high rate of game harvest route to the site. (Jorgenson, 1993). Although the areas categor- Gardens were tended throughout the year ized as plots and gardens comprised only 6.07 and there were seasonal differences in the per cent of the study area, the amount of game numbers and kinds of wild animals taken. harvested there was much greater than 6.07 During initial site clearance from January to per cent of the total harvest for 8 of the 12 April, pocket gophers were frequently taken game taxa. Of 26 white-tailed deer killed, for as the vegetation over their burrows and example, 62.5 per cent were taken in plots and mounds was removed. The garden site was gardens. Pocket gophers, pacas, agoutis, usually burned in late April and planting was coatis, collared peccaries, brocket deer and carried out after heavy rains from May to July. ocellated turkeys Agriocharis ocellata were also Brocket deer Mazama americana and white- taken in plots and gardens at frequencies tailed deer were often taken in this period greater than expected. Great curassows Crax until the corn was about 20—40 cm high. rubra and plain chachalacas were infrequently Gardens were weeded during July-September taken in these areas, while white-lipped pecca- and corn was bent over in September-October ries Tayassu pecari and thicket tinamous in order to reduce predation by birds and Crypturellus cinnamomeus were not taken in mammals. Parrots Amazona spp. were one of plots and gardens.

ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995 53

Table 2. Number of successful hunting outings and Hunting with other activities number of game birds and mammals taken by Maya Maya hunters at X-Hazil Sur practised hunt- hunters, summarized by main activity of hunter ing as a single activity as well as in conjunc- during the outing tion with other subsistence and commercial % individuals activities (Barrera de Jorgenson and game species Jorgenson, in press). About 59 per cent of suc- % outings taken cessful outings occurred when hunting was Main activity (n = 419) (n = 584) the main activity (Table 2). Gardening and hunting were combined in 28 per cent of out- Hunting 59.2 56.8 ings and accounted for 30 per cent (by num- Gardening 28.2 30.3 bers) of game birds and mammals killed. Chicle tapping 6.9 6.5 Logging and railroad Hunters also killed game while logging, tap- tie cutting 2.6 3.8 ping sapodilla trees, cutting railway sleepers Other 3.1 2.6 and conducting other activities in the forest. Total 100.0 100.0

the Lacandon Forest, Chiapas State, southern Discussion Mexico, exploited at least 19 species of mammals, as well as fish and birds, hunting was not their main subsistence activity. The Nutritional importance of game Lacandon Maya also harvested garden crops One of the main reasons people hunt is to ob- and raised cattle for sale. tain game for personal consumption (Lee and In Guatemala, Maya hunters also used DeVore, 1968). Obtaining large amounts of game to supplement food obtained from their game on a regular basis for subsistence, how- gardens and through the sale of non-timber ever, was no longer an obligatory activity for forest products, including chicle latex and xate Maya hunters at X-Hazil Sur. At about 2.0 kg Chamaedorea elegans fronds. At the village of per capita annually (total body weight), the Uaxactun, 639 inhabitants from about 150 amount of game harvested during 1989-90 families killed 572 game birds and mammals was insufficient to meet the nutritional needs during 1992-93 (J. R. Morales Alvarez, in lift.). of villagers. Given their reasonably good Despite cultural and environmental differ- health and physical condition, it was apparent ences between Uaxactun and X-Hazil Sur, the that they were meeting their protein needs numbers and kinds of game harvested were through alternative sources. quite similar. Although not reported by Was the X-Hazil Sur pattern of using game Morales Alvarez, the total weight of these ani- as a nutritional supplement the normal prac- mals, using average body weights from the lit- tice among Maya hunters, or was it unusual erature, would be about 6500 kg, approxi- due to some unknown factors? Contemporary mately 10 kg per capita annually. While the studies of Maya villagers in three other areas per capita average of 10 kg of game obtained have shown that when gardens, domestic ani- at Uaxactun was substantially greater than the mals and commercial activities were available, 2 kg obtained at X-Hazil Sur, this quantity of game was used to supplement other food meat, if equally distributed throughout the sources. At the Maya village of Senor (total village, would be nutritionally unimportant to population about 2500; Ejido X-Maben; about the Maya. In fact, the game harvest was not 50 km north of X-Hazil Sur), about 43 per cent equally distributed and a few hunters and of the households included hunters, but their families enjoyed relatively large quanti- almost all households raised domestic animals ties of game. The fact that there were Maya and 95 per cent planted gardens (Murphy, hunters who regularly harvested small 1990). Nations and Nigh (1980) and March M. amount of game and continued to practise (1987) showed that, although Maya Indians in hunting under these circumstances, however,

54 ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995

suggested that this activity was important for game, especially white-tailed deer meat. In ad- reasons other than the nutritional benefits. dition, the sack used to hold corn seeds during planting is used by local herbal doctors (curan- deros) to cure life-threatening illnesses in Cultural importance of subsistence hunting Yucatec Mayan traditional medicine (Burns, The Maya have harvested wild animals for 1983). By killing wild animals that could de- thousands of years (Greenberg, 1992; Schele stroy a garden, Maya hunters protect the and Freidel, 1992). Despite this long tradition crops as well as reaffirm their ethnic identity. of hunting, the Maya have not developed a system whereby hunting is a major group activity within the village or where hunters ac- Maya cultural adaptation crue prestige or special privileges, as reported Contemporary Maya life in rural areas in for many Amazonian tribal people (Chagnon, south-eastern Mexico is a mixture of tra- 1983; Stearman, 1989). Rather, it appears that ditional activities, such as hunting and shift- an individual hunter's needs dictate when and ing cultivation and modern activities how often he undertakes game outings (Edwards, 1986). While traditional activities (Redfield and Villa Rojas, 1962; Villa Rojas, are usually for subsistence, modern activities, 1987). Why, given the relatively small amount such as logging and chicle tapping, are gener- of game obtained versus the effort expended ally for commercial purposes, providing the to harvest the animal, and the apparent lack of Maya with cash (Barrera de Jorgenson and public recognition for this special skill, do Jorgenson, in press). At X-Hazil Sur, the Maya Maya hunters persist in hunting? The results have used this money to obtain previously un- obtained at X-Hazil Sur suggested several available goods (for example, bicycles, televi- possible reasons. sions and motor vehicles) and services (for One of the main reasons for hunting was to example, medical examinations by certified kill potential crop predators. Many gardeners professionals and secondary education at at X-Hazil Sur (Jorgenson, 1993), as well as at schools in nearby cities). In the process many Senor (Murphy, 1990) and in the Lacandon Maya cultural attitudes have changed, includ- Forest (Nations and Nigh, 1980; March M. ing some attitudes about subsistence hunting. 1987), reported that crop predation was a At X-Hazil Sur, it appears that two cate- major problem. While some game species gories of Maya hunters have evolved in re- were more likely to be killed in late secondary sponse to recent cultural changes in the area: forest or at great distances from gardens, 11 of traditional hunters and opportunistic hunters. the 12 game species taken at X-Hazil Sur used Traditional hunters hunted frequently, ranged plots and gardens, at least part of the time. widely throughout the ejido, and took a rela- Maya hunters focused on those species and tively large number of wild animals seldom hunted wild animals that did not use (Jorgenson, 1993). Opportunistic hunters sel- gardens (Jorgenson, 1993). dom hunted, visited few areas other than their gardens and took relatively few wild animals, Killing crop predators also served an addi- often only one or two a year (Jorgenson, 1993). tional cultural function. Growing crops in a While socioeconomic data were not recorded garden (milpa) is an important ethnic identifier in a systematic manner, traditional hunters that distinguishes Yucatec Maya from other often indicated a preference to hunt versus people (Burns, 1983). Growing corn (santo gra- being active in village affairs or conducting cia, sacred grace) is especially important and commercial activities in the forest. They also has religious connotations that extend beyond frequently revealed a high level of self-esteem the simple tasks of planting, weeding and har- for their skills and knowledge. Only about five vesting. After corn plants produce cobs, for men could be categorized as traditional example, Maya gardeners conduct a special hunters; the rest were opportunistic. Many op- ceremony of thanksgiving (primicia), which portunistic hunters expressed regret at not usually includes special foods prepared with

ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995 55

killing more game, but cited the need to work Ungulate management and conservation in the full time at a wide variety of subsistence and Peruvian Amazon. Biological Conservation, 45, commercial activities in order to feed and 303-310. Burns, A.F. 1983. An Epoch of Miracles: Oral Literature clothe their families. They said that it would of the Yucatec Maya. University of Texas Press, be impossible to be successful at both hunting Austin. and commercial activities. As a compromise, Chagnon, N.A. 1983. Yanomamo: The Fierce People. many said that they hunted part time. While 3rd edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. the amount of game that could be obtained Dufour, D.L. 1990. Use of tropical rainforests by na- this way was limited, opportunistic hunters tive Amazonians. BioScience, 40 (9), 652-659. expressed a degree of pride similar to that of Edwards, C.R. 1986. The human impact on the forest traditional hunters at having killed a game in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Journal of Forestry, 30, 120-127. bird or mammal. By combining hunting with Gordillo, G. 1988. Campesinos al asalto del cielo: de other activities, it appears that contemporary la expropiacion estatal a la apropiacion Maya hunters are preserving a culturally im- campesina. Siglo XXI Editores, Mexico, DF. portant activity while simultaneously adapt- Greenberg, L.S.Z. 1992. Garden hunting among the ing to internal and external pressures to mod- Yucatec Maya: a coevolutionary history of ernize their society. wildlife and culture. Etnoecologica, 1 (1), 23-33. Hamblin, N.L. 1984. Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Acknowledgemen ts Jorgenson, J.P. 1993. Gardens, wildlife densities and subsistence hunting by Maya Indians in Quintana Funding for this study was provided by World Roo, Mexico. PhD thesis, University of Florida, Wildlife Fund-US, World Nature Association, Roger Gainesville. and Bernita Jorgenson, Centro de Investigaciones de Jorgenson, J.P. In press. Maya subsistence hunters in Quintana Roo (Mexican host agency), and Program southeastern Mexico: a profile. In Proceedings of for Studies in Tropical Conservation/Tropical the International Wildlife Management Congress, Conservation and Development Program (University September 19-25 1993, San Jose, Costa Rica. of Florida). The Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Lee, R.B. and DeVore, I. (eds) 1968. Man the Hunter. Ecologia kindly granted a research permit to work Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago. in Mexico. For permission to conduct research at March, M., I.J. 1987. Los Lacandones de Mexico y su Ejido X-Hazil y Anexos, I thank community officials relation con los mamiferos silvestres: un estudio and residents. I thank Kent H. Redford and Richard etnozoologico. Biotica, 12 (1), 43-56. E. Bodmer for their comments on an earlier version McDonald, D.R. 1977. Food taboos: a primitive en- of the manuscript. vironmental protection agency (South America). Anthropos, 72,734-748. Murphy, J. 1990. Indigenous forest use and development References in the 'Maya zone' of Quintana Roo, Mexico. MES Ayres, J.M., de Magalhaes Lima, D., de Souza thesis, York University, Ontario. Martins, E. and Barreiros, J.L.K. 1991. On the track Nations, J.D. and Nigh, R.B. 1980. The evolutionary of the road: changes in subsistence hunting in a potential of Lacandon Maya sustained-yield trop- Brazilian Amazonian village. In Neotropical ical forest agriculture. Journal of Anthropological Wildlife Use and Conservation (eds J. G. Robinson Research, 36 (1), 1-30. and K. H. Redford), pp. 82-92. University of Nesbitt, P.H. 1980. The Maya of Yucatan. In Yucatan: Chicago Press, Chicago. A World Apart (eds E. H. Mosely and E. D. Terry), Balee, W. 1985. Ka'apor ritual hunting. Human pp. 41-59. University of Alabama Press, Ecology, 13 (4), 485-510. University of Alabama. Barrera de Jorgenson, A. 1993. Chicle extraction and Noguez-Galvez, A.M. 1991. Changes in soil prop- conservation in Quintana Roo, Mexico. MA thesis, erties following shifting cultivation in Quintana University of Florida, Gainesville.. Roo, Mexico. MA thesis, University of Florida, Barrera de Jorgenson, A. and Jorgenson, J.P. In Gainesville. press. Use of forest resources and conservation in Pohl, M.E.D. 1976. Ethnozoology of the Maya: an analy- Quintana Roo, Mexico. Proceedings of the sis of fauna from five sites in Peten, Guatemala. PhD International Wildlife Management Congress, thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge. September 19-25 1993, San Jose, Costa Rica. Redfield, R. and Villa Rojas, A. 1962. Chan Kom, a Bodmer, R.E., Fang, T.G. and Moya Ibanez, L. 1988. Maya Village. Carnegie Institution of Washington,

56 ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995

Publication No. 448. (First published in 1934 by Thomsen, J.B. and Braxitigam, A. 1991. Sustainable the University of Chicago Press.) uses of Neotropical parrots. In Neotropical Wildlife Redford, K.H. and Robinson, J.G. 1987. The game of Use and Conservation (eds J. G. Robinson and K. H. choice: patterns of Indian and colonist hunting in Redford), pp. 359-379. University of Chicago the Neotropics. American Anthropologist, 89 (3), Press, Chicago. 650-667. Vickers, W.T. 1991. Hunting yields and game com- Reina, R.E. 1967. Milpas and milperos: implications position over ten years in an Amazon Indian terri- for prehistoric times. American Anthropologist, 69, tory. In Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation 1-20. (eds J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford), pp. 53-81. Robinson, J.G. and Redford, K.H. (eds) 1991. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation. Villa Rojas, A. 1987. Los elegidos de dios: etnografia University of Chicago Press, Chicago. de los mayas de Quintana Roo. Instituto Nacional Ross, E.B. 1978. Food taboos, diet and hunting strat- Indigenista, Mexico. egy: the adaptation to animals in Amazon cultural Yost, J.A. and Kelley, P.M. 1983. Shotguns, blow- ecology. Current Anthropology, 19 (1), 1-16. guns and spears: the analysis of technological effi- Schele, L. and Freidel, D. 1992. A Forest of Kings. ciency. In Adaptive Responses of Native Amazonians Quill/William Morrow, New York. (eds R. B. Hames and W. T. Vickers), pp. 189-224. Stearman, A.M. 1989. Yuqui foragers in the Bolivian Academic Press, New York. Amazon: subsistence strategies, prestige and lead- ership in an acculturating society. Journal of Jeffrey P. Jorgenson, 2214 SW 70 Terrace, Anthropological Research, 45,219-244. Gainesville, FL 32607-3793, USA.

ORYX VOL 29 NO 1 JANUARY 1995 57